Use of Force Against those Threatening Violence

This whole Operation Rescue thing done by Rachel Maddow, in addition to the Justifiable Homicide in South Dakota for killing people that would do harm to a fetus aka Abortion Doctors... it's really been making me think.

We deem it okay to target Islamist clerics who use their speech to put death threats on people for "defacing their religion", but in the United States there has been no prosecution of Christians in this country for doing pretty much the same actions: Using fear of physical harm or death to get their way.

Is it moral for a person (believer or non-believer) to initiate the use of preventive force against a person who is using threats of violence or force to gain power?

When does this use of force become sanctioned? After example of violence in the past being linked to their speech? After significant danger is reported because of their speech? Or is it never sanctioned outside of law?

Replies to This Discussion

I think that if legal force could be relevant it would already have been applied. I am referring in this case to physical force, but maybe technological force as is being done across the globe at the moment would apply too, or monetary force, i.e. boycott could also apply.

However, I do not think that technological or monetary force would be a source for debate. I think most would agree that it is a peaceful form of protest. However, physical force carries with it the implication of violence and may cause a few gray areas, so for this particular discussion , I will limit it as such to physical force.

well, honestly hope, the discussion is not about Islamist clerics or Operation Rescue necessarily. The question is, do private citizens have the right to initiate physical force against those who would use threats of violence (that have been acted out by either independent cells or followers of the person making the threats) or use violence themselves in order to enact a political change through fear.

The important distinction being made is that the use of force by the private citizen is a reaction to threatening behavior made by those who seek power by use of violence.

Humans have always used violence to eliminate others we disagree with, some nations' rule of law has attempted to prevent such behaviour, like Western cultures, but have had little success. The USA power structure has been responsible for political assassinations in the past, domestically and internationally, and will continue to do so. Retaliatory violence to acts of violence is what Palestinians are doing to Israel, retaliatory violence is what a wife who kills her husband for years of physical abuse is doing. Our "thou shalt not kill" is a rule which favours the power elite, because our corrupt legal system protects those who can most afford protection. It is surprising such violence isn't more common. I have always suspected the meekness and obedience bred into religious sheople was to to prevent any kind of retaliatory violence to power structures. It is the very purpose of religion, to maintain a power structure.

The fact that it's nearly always progressives at the political murder/assassination end of the stick is sufficient evidence for that progressive thinkers generally find individual violence revolting (tho progressives find institutional violence much more acceptable), whereas conservatives and libertarians seem to find violence not quite so revolting (whether individual or institutional). This creates a social dichotomy, which as long as we have rules which many people don't fundamentally agree with will remain useless in our society.

One must ask the question, did rendering murder illegal actually reduce the number of deaths among humans? The hyper legalisation of our society brings much fewer benefits than the powers that be have us believe. Canadians live in a more 'obedient' culture than USA citizens, but our legal system is practically identical. But the Canadian identity was birthed in loyalty to the monarchy, whereas USA identity was forged in rebellion from monarchy. Isn't it ironic that a culture rejects one monarchy, to simply replace it with the monarchy of Christianity/money?

The only truly successful revolutions were violent ones. And if we continue to let sheople murder healthcare providers, they will eventually win, no matter what is "right" or "wrong" and no matter what the law says. Those who dare to eliminate the opposition always win. Daring is the ultimate deciding factor, not the law.

I think that in liberal democracies, where civil liberties are guaranteed, the rule of law should always prevail. I also think that civil disobedience should always remain as a last resort option, but it shouldn't be encouraged in its violent form - that's a very slippery slope. Self-appointed peacekeepers and vigilantes should remain where they belong - i.e., Hollywood studios.

Is it moral for a person to initiate the use of preventive force? It depends a lot on context, and on this person's personal assessment of the situation, which may be flawed: is this person the most qualified to evaluate the problem and fix it? If not, calling the police, alerting the press, raising public awareness one way or the other are certainly better options. But if there's none other, it's probably not as much a moral issue as a public safety one.

Arg, I should have written 'constitutional democracy'. And kick my own butt every time I use the word 'liberal' on a multinational forum (not that I'm anti-liberal, as you Merkins understand it, but since it means different things in different places, indiscriminate use of the word 'liberal' can only lead to confusion.)

And if Coulter is wrong, you can always kick her own ass for being wrong.

Although the problem with Coulter is, you can't be sure which end of her digestive is the ass. It would be simpler if she did wear glasses: if you see the glasses, the ass is at the other end (otherwise, it's a fucking monocle you'd see.)

To me Tiller's murderer is no different than the pilot and the military cronies behind him who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. The principal is to kill the few to save the many. It's the very same logic. The winner and the loser are simply relative to which political side you chose. I choose to be on the abortion side, against procreators, as I would have voted, were that a reality, against using/developing the Abomb. Some of us are at war with pro-lifers, and it is a war. I don't want war, but if we don't stop them, they will win.